Tuesday, March 14, 2017

The Impeachment Opinion, Annotated

Koreans did it. They impeached their corrupt and incompetent president, and the Constitutional Court sustained the impeachment to remove her from the office. It is a stunning triumph for Korea's democracy. The crowning moment of the triumph, of course, is when the Constitutional Court announced that Park Geun-hye was removed from the office. The moment was capped by a 20-minute reading of the court's opinion from the bench by Acting Chief Justice Lee Jeong-mi.

The court's opinion will not simply go down in Korean history, but in the history of world democracy as an exemplar of how an illiberal and anti-democratic president is to be taken down peacefully, in an orderly manner, pursuant to the rule of law. In other words: it deserves to be shared with the world immediately. The Constitutional Court usually provides an official translated version of its most important opinions, but the translation process usually takes months. So--I prepared a translated version of the court's opinion, with annotations for those who are not familiar with Korea's constitutional structure.

Several caveats apply. First, and obviously, I did the translation myself and this translation is absolutely not official. Second, because I am not an attorney trained in Korean law, I may have gotten certain legal terms of art wrong. (However, because I am a lawyer and encounter Korean law frequently, my translation should be better than ones done by non-lawyers.) Third, the opinion translated below is the version that was read from the bench on March 10, 2017. Often, the court uses an abbreviated version of the opinion to read from the bench, and produce the full opinion later on its website. Because the full opinion is not yet available, I translated the bench opinion.

The original bench opinion is available here. Off we go, after the jump.

Got a question or a comment for the Korean? Email away at askakorean@gmail.com.

The translated opinion is produced below. Important passages are highlighted in blue, followed by TK's annotation in bold.

* * *

We will begin delivering the court's decision on 2016 heon-na 1, the impeachment of President Park Geun-hye. Before giving the decision, we wish to remark on the progress of this case. In the past 90 days, we justices have given our all to resolve this case fairly and expeditiously. We believe that the Korean people have spent a time of much deliberation and agony, just as much as this panel. Since December 9 of last year when this case was filed, we justices met for deliberation for 60 days, or every day except weekends. There is no item in hearing the trial or the decision that did not undergo the discussion involving every one of the justices.

[TK: It is unusual for the Constitutional Court to preface its opinion in this manner. But clearly, the court gave this extra statement because it understood how important this case was.]

We have held three hearings for trial preparation, and 17 hearings for oral arguments. In the process, we carefully listened to the arguments by the impeachment committee and the counsels for each side, as well as 174 documents, 12 witnesses, five motions to compel production of documents and one request for admission from the petitioner, and 60 documents, 17 witnesses, six motions to compel production of documents and 68 request for admission from the respondent. We examined 48,000 pages of documents, and we also received 40 boxes of third party petitions.

[TK: Remember that impeachment is a trial. The "petitioner" is the one who petitions for impeachment, i.e. the representatives from the National Assembly. The "respondent" is the one who responds to the petition, i.e. the president.]

As all Korean people know, the constitution is the foundation of all national institutions including the presidency, and the people are the source of the power that creates such a constitution. This court deeply recognizes this truth, and approaches this decision as if we are a party appearing before the court of history. This court wishes that this decision today, issued pursuant to the authority delegated by the people, will end the national division and discord, and serve as the fuel for progressing toward the road of reconciliation and healing. Further, the rule of the law is a value that all of us must uphold, and cannot be shaken.

[TK: This ends the court's preliminary statement. Next, the court begins by considering the procedural propriety of the impeachment.]

We will now begin delivering the court's decision.

First,
we consider whether there was an error in the procedure in which the
impeachment resolution was passed. We consider the argument that the
impeachment resolution did not specifically state the facts that form the basis
for the impeachment.

Under
the constitution, the facts forming the basis for impeachment refer to the
facts establishing that a public official violated either constitution or the
law in carrying his official duty. Here, violation of the law is not limited to
violation of the criminal law. Further, impeachment leads to removal from
public office, not a criminal liability. Therefore, the impeachment resolution
only needs to provide enough facts for the respondent to exercise her defensive
right and discern the issues for the trial. Although there are arguably parts
in the impeachment resolution at issue in which the constitutional violations
are not clearly categorized, it is sufficient to specify the bases for
impeachment when they are read together with parts alleging statutory
violations.

[TK: This was perhaps Park Geun-hye's strongest argument, but the court rejected it. The attorneys for Park argued that the impeachment was procedurally defective by pointing to criminal procedure. Because the procedure for an impeachment trial is not spelled out in detail (since an impeachment trial is so rare!), there was a decent chance that the Constitutional Court might have fashioned a stricter procedural requirement than the one actually followed by the National Assembly. Because the court rejected this argument, Park Geun-hye is already halfway toward defeat at this point.]

Next,
we address the argument that when the impeachment resolution was submitted for
a vote, there had been no investigation from the National Assembly’s
Legislation & Judiciary Committee, and only the indictment [from the
Supreme Prosecutor’s Office] and several newspaper articles were offered as
evidence. Under the principle of separation of powers, we must respect the
right of the National Assembly to freely establish its own process of handling
its affairs. Even under the National Assembly Act, it is the National
Assembly’s discretion whether to conduct an investigation when an impeachment resolution
is proposed. Thus, voting on the resolution violated neither the constitution
nor any statute.

Next,
we consider the argument that the impeachment resolution did not have a floor
debate. While it is true that there was no floor debate prior to the voting,
there is no rule under the National Assembly Act that there should be such a
debate. Although an Assembly Member may notify to the chair of the Assembly his
intent to either support or oppose the resolution and open a debate, there were
no Assembly Member who expressed an intent for a debate, nor is it the case
that the chair overruled any expressed desire for a debate.

We
address the argument that it was contrary to the law for the National Assembly
to hold a single vote for several bases of impeachment. In case there are
multiple bases for impeachment, whether to have a single vote for the several
bases or to have individual votes for each basis is entirely up to the Assembly
Member who proposed the resolution. There is no written rule on voting
otherwise.

[TK: The court shut down several arguments by Park Geun-hye's attorneys that, basically, the National Assembly did not follow proper procedure to pass the impeachment resolution. This was a weak argument that had no chance.]

We
review the argument that a decision by eight justices, forming the bench
ordinarily made up of nine, violates the right of fair trial. Under the
constitution, the Constitutional Court is made up of nine justices. But
realistically, it is inevitable for some of the justices to become unable to
participate in a decision from time to time, for reasons such as the justice’s
business travel, illness, or the gap between one justice’s retirement and the
appointment of his successor. The constitution and the law provide for rules in
such cases. An impeachment decision requires six votes in favor, and hearing of
the case requires seven or more justices in attendance. An argument that
calls for waiting until all nine justices to attend the trial, as a practical
matter, is an argument that there should be no trial at all, in a situation
like this one in which there is a controversy as to whether the acting
president may nominate the Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court. This
results in prolonging the constitutional crisis occasioned by the suspension of
the president’s authority pursuant to the impeachment resolution. As long as
there is no violation of the constitution or the law in hearing and deciding
the case with eight justices, the Constitutional Court cannot allow the
constitutional crisis to continue in neglect.

[TK: The Constitutional Court has nine justices who serve six year terms, and the term for Chief Justice Park Han-cheol was over in the middle of the impeachment trial--which is why the Acting Chief Justice Lee Jeong-mi delivered the opinion. But the argument that an eight-justice bench was not supposed to hold the trial was a frivolous one, since there is a clear rule that establishes seven justices as a quorum.]

Therefore,
there is no violation of the constitution or the laws in the National
Assembly’s vote approving the impeachment resolution, nor is there any other
error in the requirements of the law.

[TK: Thus concludes the court's discussion of the procedural issues for the impeachment trial. The court found all proper procedures were followed. Next, the court discusses the merits of the trial.]

Now,
we review the bases for impeachment. We examine each basis in turn, to consider
whether the respondent violated the constitution or the law as she carried out
her official duties.

[TK: The impeachment resolution named five violations of constitution and four violations of statute. The court grouped those violations into four groups.]

We
consider the claim that the respondent abused her authority to appoint public
official, violating the essence of the career civil service system. Based on
the respondent’s direction, Bureau Chief Roh [Tae-gang] and Section Chief Jin
[Jae-su] of the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism (MCST) received adverse
treatment in their promotion, which lead Roh to retire. Former Minister of MCST
Yoo Jin-ryong was also relieved of his duty. We recognize the fact that Kim
Gi-chun, chief of staff to the president, ordered the Vice Minister of MCST to
receive resignation letters from six Class-1 public officials, and relieved
three of the officials of their duties. However, the sum of the evidence
appearing in this case is insufficient to establish that the respondent
punished Bureau Chief Roh and Section Chief Jin because they were interfering
with Choi Seo-won’s pursuit of private gains. Further, the reasons for Minister
Yoo’s relief, and Kim Gi-chun’s receipt of six resignation letters, likewise
remain unclear.

[TK: First argument for impeachment was that Park Geun-hye abused her authority to appoint public officials. This argument lost. You can see here that the court is requiring a very high evidentiary standard; there was a great deal of circumstantial evidence, but the court rejected them as insufficient. This is a wise choice, because an impeachment is not something to be achieved too easily.]

We
consider the claim that the respondent infringed upon the freedom of press. The
petitioner argues that the respondent applied pressure to terminate the head of
Segye Ilbo. The court recognizes the fact that Segye Ilbo reported on the Jeong
Yun-hoe Report composed by Office of the Chief of Civil Affairs of the Blue
House; that the respondent, in response to Segye Ilbo’s coverage, criticized
the document leak, stating that leaking Blue House documents is an act of
upending the national order and that the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office must
investigate thoroughly. However, the sum of all evidence appearing in this case
does not clearly establish specifically who applied pressure to Segye Ilbo, and
there is no evidence that the respondent was involved.

[TK: Second argument loses also. This argument had less evidence than the first one, so not very surprising that it met the same result.]

Next,
we consider the alleged violation of the duty to protect life and the duty to
exercise due diligence as a public official. On April 16, 2014, the Sewol ferry
sank, tragically claiming 304 lives. At the time, the respondent remained at
her residence. The constitution provides that the nation recognizes the fundamental
and inviolable human rights belonging to each individual, and has the duty to
guarantee such rights. As the sinking of the Sewol was a tragedy that greatly
shocked and pained all Koreans, no word would be enough to console the victims.
The respondent has the duty to exercise her authority and carry out the duties
of her office in order for the nation to faithfully execute its duty to protect
the people’s lives and bodily safety. However, even in the case of a disaster
in which people’s lives are threatened, it is difficult to find that a specific
and particular duty to act, such as the respondent’s personal participation in
the rescue effort, arises. In addition, the respondent has the duty to exercise
her due diligence in carrying out the duties of her office as the president.
But because the concept of due diligence is relative and abstract, it is
difficult to impeach based on a violation of such an abstract duty as duly
diligent carriage of duties. Previously, the Constitutional Court already held
that, because the president’s duty to exercise due diligence in carrying out
his duty cannot be accomplished as a matter of rule, it cannot be subject to a
jurisprudential judgment, and that the existence of due diligence in carrying
out the presidential duties in times of political incompetence or errors in
policy decisions, by themselves, cannot serve as a basis for impeachment.
Although the Sewol disaster could not be more terrible, whether the respondent
diligently carried out her duties on the day of the tragedy is not a subject
for determination in an impeachment trial.

[TK: The third argument was about Park Geun-hye's failure to respond properly to the Sewol ferry disaster. Although this argument had a great deal of emotional resonance, as a legal matter it was a non-starter. As the court explains in the opinion, the Constitutional Court already established in a previous case (namely, the impeachment trial of President Roh Moo-hyun in 2004) that incompetence is not an impeachable offense.

At this point, the pro-impeachment arguments went 0-for-3. Deep breaths were held everywhere in Korea. The fourth argument was the true meat of the case: Park Geun-hye's privitization of power for the benefit of Choi Soon-sil.]

Now,
we review the issue of the respondent’s permitting Choi Seo-won to interfere
with government affairs and abuse of authority. [TK: Because Choi Soon-sil legally changed her name to Choi Seo-won in 2014, the court refers to her by her legal name.] Staff Secretary Jeong Ho-seong
generally delivered to the respondent the documents to be reported to the
president. From January 2013 to April 2016, Jeong Ho-seong delivered to Choi
Seo-won documents containing government confidentiality, such as reports on
appointments, reports for cabinet meetings, itinerary for the presidential
travels abroad, preparatory documents for meeting with the U.S. Secretary of
State, and so on. Choi Seo-won reviewed the documents and intervened in
governmental activities by giving her opinion, editing the contents of the
documents or adjusting the respondent’s schedule. Choi Seo-won also recommended
candidates for public offices, some of whom assisted in Choi’s pursuit of
wealth. The respondent received a request from Choi Seo-won to form an inroad
for KD Corporation, an auto parts manufacturer, to supply for a major
corporation. The respondent had An Jong-beom to request the transaction to
Hyundai Motor Group. The respondent directed An Jong-beom to establish
foundations related to culture and sports, leading to the establishment of Mir
Foundation and K-Sports Foundation, funded by major corporations who provided KRW
48.6 billion and KRW 28.8 billion respectively. But it was the respondent and
Choi Seo-won who made all decisions as to the operation of the two foundations,
including hiring and firing officers, implementing projects, spending its
budget and making business decisions; the corporations that provided the funds
had no say. Shortly before Mir Foundation was established, Choi Seo-won founded
and operated Playground, an advertisement company. Choi dominated Mir through
its executives that she recommended, and profited by having them enter into a
service contract with her own company Playground. Further, pursuant to Choi
Seo-won’s request, the respondent, through An Jong-beom, demanded Korea Telecom
(KT) to hire two particular individuals to work in advertisement. Thereafter,
Playground was selected as KT’s advertisement agency, winning advertisement
contracts worth KRW 6.8 billion. In addition, An Jong-beom provided introductory
materials for Playground to Hyundai Motors Group under the respondent’s
direction, and Hyundai Motors and Kia Motors awarded a KRW 900 million contract
for Playground, a company with very little history. Meanwhile, Choi Seo-won
established The Blue K a day before K-Sports’ foundation. Choi hired Roh
Seung-il and Park Heon-yeong as employees for K-Sports, ordering them to enter
into a service contract with The Blue K. The respondent, through An Jong-beom,
had Grand Korea Leisure and POSCO to found sports teams, whose players would be
managed by The Blue K as their agent. Through Vice Minister Kim Jong of the
MCST, Choi Seo-won obtained an internal document for MCST regarding the reform
plans for local sports clubs, and devised a plan for K-Sports to intervene for
the purpose of profiting The Blue K. Also, the respondent had a one-on-one
meeting with the chairman of Lotte Group and demanded money to build sports
facility in Hanam-si for strategic promotion of promising athletes;
accordingly, Lotte sent KRW 7 billion to K-Sports.

[TK: This long recitation of facts regarding Park Geun-hye's involvement in Choi Soon-sil's corruption is a sign that the court is about to dig deep into this issue. To be removed from office, Park Geun-hye must be found to have seriously violated the constitution and the law.]

Next,
we consider whether such actions by the respondents violate the constitution
and the law. The constitution declares the duty of the public official to
actualize the public good by designating public officials as “servants for all
people.” Such duties are specified through the National Public Officials Act
and Public Official Ethics Act. The action by the respondent is an abuse of the
president’s stature and authority for Choi Seo-won’s profit; it cannot be
considered a fair administration of the duties of the office, and violates the
constitution, the National Public Officials Act and Public Official Ethics Act.
Further, the respondent’s action of directly and indirectly assisting Choi
Seo-won’s profiteering violated the corporations’ right for property and their
freedom to operate their business. Also, the leak of numerous confidential
documents to Choi Seo-won based on the respondent’s direction or neglect
violates the duty of confidentiality under the National Public Officials Act.

[TK: A big setup by the court, as it specifies exactly what law Park Geun-hye violated. But are those violations serious enough? Here it comes...]

We
consider whether the respondent’s violations of the law are sufficiently
serious for removal. The president must not only exercise her authority
pursuant to the constitution and the laws, but also transparently disclose her
carriage of duties to be assessed by the people. But the respondent tightly hid
Choi Seo-won’s interference with governmental policies, denied any interference each time when
questions arose, and denounced the fact that questions were raised.
Accordingly, constitutional institutions such as the National Assembly could
not check her actions, nor could the press monitor her behavior. Further, the
respondent intervened and assisted Choi Seo-won’s private profiteering by
establishing Mir and K-Sports Foundations and assisting Playground, The Blue K
and KD Corporation. The respondent’s violation of the constitution and the law
occurred consistently throughout her administration, and despite the criticism
from the National Assembly and the press, the respondent hid the facts and
punished the dissenters. Consequentially, those who followed the respondent’s
directions, including An Jong-beom, Kim Jong, Jeong Ho-seong, were arrested and
indicted for corruption. Such violations of the constitution and the law by the
respondent damaged the principle of representative democracy and the rule of
law. Although the respondent in her public statements promised to cooperate
fully in ascertaining the truth, she failed to cooperate with the investigation
by the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office and the Special Prosecutor, and refused to
allow the Blue House to be searched. In reviewing the series of remarks by the
respondent in relation to the bases for impeachment, we cannot find the resolve
to uphold the constitution such that the violations of the law will not be repeated.

Therefore,
as the respondent’s violations of the constitution and the law betrayed the
people’s trust, they are serious violations of the law that cannot be condoned
from the perspective of upholding the constitution. As the respondent’s
violation of the law significantly and negatively impacts and influences the
constitutional order, the gains of upholding the constitution by removing the
respondent from her office is overwhelmingly great.

Accordingly,
by unanimous opinion of all justices, the court hereby issues the order:

The
respondent, President Park Geun-hye, is removed from the office.

[TK: BOOM. There it goes, in one-two-three step: (1) Park Geun-hye used her power to help Choi Soon-sil's profiteering; (2) such use of power violates the constitution and the law, and; (3) the violations were serious enough to merit removal from the office.

Overall, the court's opinion is principled and disciplined. It painstakingly established in the beginning that all procedures were proper. The opinion also set up a high evidentiary standard and did not budge from the standard. The court aggressively pruned off the weaker grounds for impeachment, and focused on the strongest one: Park Geun-hye's assistance of Choi Soon-sil's profiteering. Note that the decision was not even about the claim that Park herself profited from bribery; rather, it is that Park abused her power to help Choi Soon-sil profit. This much is factually irrefutable, and inarguably in violation of the constitution and the law. It is a sound judicial practice for a court to make a major decision based on the strongest and narrowest grounds, so that the legitimacy of the decision would be beyond reproach.

And just like that, Park Geun-hye was no longer the president of the Republic of Korea. A historic achievement.]

Got a question or a comment for the Korean? Email away at askakorean@gmail.com.

16 comments:

The actual opinion is very well written and you can see how thoroughly they thought it through. There is a reason why these people were chosen as the justices on, arguably, the highest court of Korea. Just as a side note, would have been nice to see the additional opinions recited at the end of the trial translated as well. Nonetheless, thanks for the translation and annotations!

Awesome job TK. Wonder if '파면' is better translated as 'dismissal' rather than 'removal' though - like the difference between '해임' & '파면'. I'm not a lawyer so there may be technicalities I'm overlooking, but when I heard the Opinion read out in Korean that final sentence came across as a much stronger statement than one may get from reading "...PKH is removed from office".

As a long time reader, I expected a kind of analysis article; a full translation is a whole another thing!As much as I enjoyed the translation (I'm far from being fluent in Legal English, so the translation itself was interesting to read) it was somewhat tense reliving those moments. Back then, even the stock market experienced triple dips, each time when a pro-impeachment argument was shot down.

PKH is going to be summoned by the Prosecutor's Office today (21th). I wonder how the case would go from here. Some are still skeptical about how thorough the prosecutors are going to be, though.

I'd hate to nitpick, but one small error is found in the paragraph discussing eight-judge decision - the impeachment trial hearing requires "at least" seven judges in attendance. (Literal translation would be "requires seven judges or more")

Fantastic. A lucid and compelling analysis, both by yourself, and by the court. I must admit, I was suspicious that there were strong enough grounds for impeachment, given that Park herself did not seem to have profitted, but the explanation, now that I've read it (plus the clear annotations!), makes perfect sense. A cool read.

Really, you call this farce a triumph in democracy?If you'd stop sucking each other dicks, you would notice that this is just a public crucifixion fueled by the usual lemming-like Korean public emotion. Sure, the court opinion may make sense on the surface, but you can’t look at it out of context. The context, at least for me (and believe me, I am no fan of PGH), is that what she did was no better or worse than anything that EVERY president before her did (and dare I say, any president after her will most likely do). She was incompetent and what she did was weird and all, but come on, should it have led to a 96% disapproval rating? The only reason that she got impeached is bad timing. Sewol and Comfort Women tipped the balance a certain way, and the economy wasn’t there to take the edge off of public opinion, which led to those ridiculous candle-lit communal masturbation marches, and ultimately impeachment.Normal democracy works through elections and a representative government, not through mob-mentality witch-hunts.

LOL, for a guy whose retorts to his critics are often cheap shots at their reading comprehension skills, why would you call me a bitter 박사모 when I clearly state that I am no fan of Park? Really, I have no horse in this race, and in fact I am kind of psyched that Korea’s ineptness is shining through in plain view for the world to see. I will just be LOLing from afar.

I haven’t been able to find the opinion by Justice An in English, but I will repeat again, do YOU really believe that what Park did was substantially worse than anything that every president before her did? If a guy gets ticketed for doing 100 mph, is it a triumph when everyone else was also doing 100 mph (or 110 or 90, just to make my point), but just didn’t get caught? If this was indeed the first step in cleaning up the system that allowed for this to happen, yes, I guess you could call it a triumph. But why am I skeptical that this isn’t the case? Oh yeah, this. Lather rinse repeat.

I'll humor you and answer this question: "do YOU really believe that what Park did was substantially worse than anything that every president before her did?" Answer is a clear yes. Kim Young-Sam, Kim Dae-jung and Roh Moo-hyun did nothing that even remotely approaches this. That's three out of the five democratic Korean presidents prior to Park.

LOL, so not being able to read Hangul (the bestest alphabet ever!) is something to be laughed at? Okay, sir.My Google translator and other searches led me to believe that that word meant Park-Lover (or the movement attached to keeping her in office), but if I am wrong then please let me know. If I am correct, then I do not know what you are laughing at, so please humor and enlighten me.So you are criticizing the source, but not the contents? Are you saying that the article is an outright falsehood? It seems to match more or less with “credible” sources, and the only reason I linked to that particular article was because it was concise with some pretty pictures, and it got the message across. Please forgive me for not being more thorough in my research for a blog comment. If you think that the contents of the article are incorrect, then again, please humor and enlighten me.OK, so you are willing to concede that Kim Young-Sam, Kim Dae-jung and Roh Moo-hyun did unlawful and corrupt things, just not as bad as Park? And the other two democratic presidents (not to mention the non-democratic presidents before them) did worse things? My point was that every president did bad things. Degrees matter to a certain extent, but it doesn’t really change my observation that the Korean political system is kaput, does it? Please humor and enlighten me if otherwise.

When you can't even read Korean (and therefore has zero access to the topic's books, articles, local news, and above all context that you seem to find so important), but thought of yourself as someone sufficiently informed of the issues to write shit like

"If you'd stop sucking each other dicks, you would notice that this is just a public crucifixion fueled by the usual lemming-like Korean public emotion."

I have seen Ms. Park's trial from afar and without paying lots of attention (sorry, we are having a really awful time down here). It remembers me an impeachment trial we had in 1993 for Carlos Andrés Pérez, in wich a faction lost power and kind of allowed a communist one to gain more power, wich resulted in the ascend of Hugo Chávez (to whom I will refer in the future as The Baboon -hope those poor little animals can forgive me-) to power.

My question is, how is the power struggle in Korea at this moment?, do you see a possibility for an extreme faction to start accumulating power?. Sorry for the long post, as Mr. Ortega y Gasset said: "I am myself and my circumstances", so when I see Park's impeachment I see echoes of the aforementioned incident.

Thank you for this careful translation. However, I feel that you missed a major issue for the court, one that reflects the will of the masses... she promised to coopeeate with the investigations,and then tried to block them. This was not a major legal argument, but it surely pissed off the court. Because the question of how much leeway the president has in terms of a "kitchen cabinet" and some not officially appointed individual being given authority to "speak for the president" is certai ly arguable. Frankly, the Korean Constitutional Court creates law on the fly (see Sejong ruling, because Korea has no history of "common law" (peoples' law as constitutional framework) but they created itto defend Seoul as capitol city).

I wouldn't refer to the Capital Relocation Case. That is the Constitutional Court's version of Bush v. Gore--a tendentious political decision that the subsequent courts pretend not to exist.

Did the fact that Park Geun-hye refused to cooperate piss off the court? Probably. But it is also a legal factor. Presidents have a duty to uphold the constitution, and the duty encompasses transparency and following the due process of law.

ASK THE KOREAN HERE

Search This Blog

Contribute to AAK! Wiki

AAK!'s Facebook Page

AAK! on Twitter

About TK

The Korean is a Korean American living in Washington D.C. / Northern Virginia. He lived in Seoul until he was 16, then moved to Los Angeles area. The Korean refers to himself in the third person because he thinks it sounds cool.